High Income zips in Illinois losing population. (Chicago, Oak Park: house, to buy)

[Back to NE]

I'm reading a book that claims the affluent suburbs West and North of Chicago are losing more population than any other comparable 'superzips' in the country. This surprised me, I have a sister in Hinsdale who loves it there.

Does anyone have an explanation? I'm sure taxes are high but people raise kids in these zips, they should be high IMO.

The book is Coming Apart by Charles Murray.

Not flaming, just curious...

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by Back to NE

I'm reading a book that claims the affluent suburbs West and North of Chicago are losing more population than any other comparable 'superzips' in the country. This surprised me, I have a sister in Hinsdale who loves it there.

Does anyone have an explanation? I'm sure taxes are high but people raise kids in these zips, they should be high IMO.

The book is Coming Apart by Charles Murray.

Not flaming, just curious...

Something to consider re: this is the economy's impact on those looking to buy who can afford to replace current homeowners. A lot of people rode the wave of prosperity via the stock market from 85 to 2001 or so and got very wealthy in the process. If you started working around 1985 or so, you're 50 now and your have either left or are leaving home. People of my generation (30-45 crowd) have had basically 12 years of stock market stagnation that has hindered wealth accumulation, ie, we can't afford to buy those homes and put our kids into these districts.

Those that can't afford it are moving further out where things are more reasonably priced. Many of us who can afford it are electing to stay in the city. Even if I can afford it, I'm not gonna pay $800,000 for a house in an elite suburb. I'd rather pay half that for a hous in a nice, but not extravagant suburb further out or maybe $500,000-$600,000 for a really nice place in the city or an inner burb like an Oak Park.

The reason you may see the pop decline in Chicago vs. other metros is due to the region being very flat w/ plenty of water, etc. New developments are cheaper to settle and as a result, people have other options on the outer fringes. In areas where you have other ultra wealthy zip codes, there are physical barriers that restrict sprawl (swamps, deserts, mountains, etc.).

[nikitakolata]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Something to consider re: this is the economy's impact on those looking to buy who can afford to replace current homeowners. A lot of people rode the wave of prosperity via the stock market from 85 to 2001 or so and got very wealthy in the process. If you started working around 1985 or so, you're 50 now and your have either left or are leaving home. People of my generation (30-45 crowd) have had basically 12 years of stock market stagnation that has hindered wealth accumulation, ie, we can't afford to buy those homes and put our kids into these districts.

Those that can't afford it are moving further out where things are more reasonably priced. Many of us who can afford it are electing to stay in the city. Even if I can afford it, I'm not gonna pay $800,000 for a house in an elite suburb. I'd rather pay half that for a hous in a nice, but not extravagant suburb further out or maybe $500,000-$600,000 for a really nice place in the city or an inner burb like an Oak Park.

The reason you may see the pop decline in Chicago vs. other metros is due to the region being very flat w/ plenty of water, etc. New developments are cheaper to settle and as a result, people have other options on the outer fringes. In areas where you have other ultra wealthy zip codes, there are physical barriers that restrict sprawl (swamps, deserts, mountains, etc.).

Good luck finding a "really nice place" in the city or Oak Park on that budget... I just sold my house in Humboldt Park for more than that.

[almost3am]

A quick check of the census for pop estimated change from 2010-11:
Hinsdale: +0.6%
Winnetka: +0.4%
Wilmette: +0.4%
Lake Forest: +0.4%

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by almost3am

A quick check of the census for pop estimated change from 2010-11:
Hinsdale: +0.6%
Winnetka: +0.4%
Wilmette: +0.4%
Lake Forest: +0.4%

Yeah, but that is driven by poor people moving in.

[Back to NE]

Originally Posted by almost3am

A quick check of the census for pop estimated change from 2010-11:
Hinsdale: +0.6%
Winnetka: +0.4%
Wilmette: +0.4%
Lake Forest: +0.4%

I think the book looked at change between 2000 and 2010.

[chet everett]

Family size.

Much more dramatic is the shift inside Chicago. While there are dramatically fewer people there are areas with many more "households". The groups that at one time had very large numbers of children, at both extreme of income, have simulataneously experienced shifts in attitudes toward smaller numbers of children...

Pretty simple, and mostly a good thing.

[almost3am]

Originally Posted by Back to NE

I think the book looked at change between 2000 and 2010.

I just looked up the book, it says it is an analysis from 1960 to 2010. That will take a little more work to look up place info, I'll just believe you. What was the book's conclusion on why?

[chet everett]

I wonder if the author's analysis even included such basics as knowing that the USPS does create new zips all the time -- Oak Brook shared Hinsdale 60521 for decades but was split into it own 60523 several years back...

[TempesT68]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Yeah, but that is driven by poor people moving in.

Poor people in hinsdale is an oxymoron.